Visual labels to facilitate hygiene around implant-supported complete fixed dental prostheses

Murgueitio, Rafael; Dussan, Jaime; Ríos, Héctor F.; Ávila‐Ortiz, Gustavo

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.026

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…14 It has also been reported that placing small notches on specific sites in a full-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis so that patients can see the sites requiring cleaning contributes to plaque control and long-term peri-implant health. 19 However, the author's previous study showed more plaque accumulation at these specific sites than other parts of the fitting surface, which was contrary to the original intention the notching sites. 34 Such plaque accumulation may be related to the gap height between the fitting surface and the mucosa, with a narrow gap limiting access for oral hygiene.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

“…In addition, there are scarce definite reports on professional and home-care hygiene maintenance methods in the literature. 19,[22][23][24][25] Currently, the fitting surface of the full-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses (mainly the pontic) is designed to contact the mucosa, while the noncontact design is rarely reported. Previous studies showed that fitting surface of the prostheses in close contact with the mucosa avoids problems with speech, aesthetics, and food-trapping, but impedes effective cleaning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Plaque accumulation on the fitting surface of full‐arch implant‐supported fixed prostheses with contact or noncontact pontics: A split mouth randomized controlled trial

Gong

Lin

2023

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo explore the differences in plaque accumulation on the fitting surface of full‐arch implant‐supported fixed prostheses with contact or noncontact pontics.Materials and MethodsNineteen patients (20 prostheses, 7 in the maxilla, and 13 in the mandible) intending to undergo full‐arch implant‐supported immediate function prostheses were recruited. During immediate restoration and using the midline as the boundary, one side was restored as a pontic and mucosa noncontact type (the test group), and the opposite side was restored as a pontic and mucosa contact type (the control group). In a follow‐up 6 months after the surgery, the cleanliness of the fitting surface of the immediate prosthesis was evaluated by plaque staining and debris index determination. Patient satisfaction was investigated by questionnaire.ResultsTwenty prostheses from 19 patients included in the randomized controlled trial were followed up. Among the 20 prostheses, the percentage of area covered with plaque was significantly lower in the test group compared with that in the control group (31.5 ± 15.8% vs. 43.7 ± 15.3%; p < 0.001). The debris index in the test group was lower than that in the control group, although the difference was not statistically significant (2.77 ± 0.73 vs. 3.15 ± 0.90; p > 0.05). In the patient satisfaction survey, most of the patients were satisfied with most aspects of the prostheses, however, nearly half of the patients were not satisfied with the cleaning.ConclusionsThe pontic and mucosa noncontact prosthetic design reduces plaque accumulation on the fitting surface, which is beneficial for maintaining oral cleanliness. However, the majority of study samples were mandible and conclusions may not be fully applicable to maxilla. Trial registration: www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR1900028576).Clinical SignificanceThe noncontact design in full‐arch implant‐supported fixed prostheses may be an effective measure of improving oral hygiene promotion. There is need for more research that can further improve oral hygiene of patients with full‐arch implant‐supported prostheses.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plaque accumulation on the fitting surface of full‐arch implant‐supported fixed prostheses with contact or noncontact pontics: A split mouth randomized controlled trial

Gong

Lin

2023

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…9 Murgueitio in 2014 states that all patients with prosthetic hybrid should receive oral hygiene instruction, and also bacterial plaque in a susceptible host is recognized as an etiologic factor of mucositis or periimplantitis. 10 Thus, He was sensitized to the patient of the importance of monitoring and maintenance of the prosthesis as well as the use and control of protective splint in order to avoid future complications.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rehabilitation implant supported in malocclusion class II with high need for lip support: case report

Estephano¹,

Cisneros²,

Geldres³

et al. 2018

JDHODT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hybrid prosthesis is a feasible treatment in Patients With malocclusion type II. The present article shows a case report of a female patient Who Had many teeth extractions of the upper teeth and an Denture immediate, followed by a fixed full arch prosthesis over six implants, while in the jaw, the multiple teeth extraction and the installation of a fixed prosthesis and a splint protection. This article describes step by step the complete patient rehabilitation in a type II malocclusion with an esthetic and functional point of view.

show abstract

“…Prevention and prompt treatment of peri-implant tissue inflammation includes a combination of both regular scheduled appointments for supportive therapy and proper daily oral hygiene performed at home by patient [ 19 20 21 ]. However, clearly defined protocols concerning the professional and home-care hygienic management of patients wearing a full-arch fixed-implant prosthesis are scarce in the literature [ 3 13 19 22 23 ]. The achievement of a satisfactory level of oral hygiene during post-implant rehabilitation may be influenced negatively by a series of factors relating to the patient and to the prosthodontic restoration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The achievement of a satisfactory level of oral hygiene during post-implant rehabilitation may be influenced negatively by a series of factors relating to the patient and to the prosthodontic restoration. Patients who have been totally edentulous or with a compromised dentition for a long period of time before undergoing immediate-loading implant surgery might exhibit poor compliance with self-hygienic oral care [ 10 11 22 24 ]. Moreover, motivation to maintain adequate plaque control and manual dexterity tend to decrease with age [ 11 25 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Angled implant brush for hygienic maintenance of full-arch fixed-implant rehabilitations: a pilot study

Setti

Pesce

Dellepiane

et al. 2020

J Periodontal Implant Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This pilot study was conducted to evaluate the cleaning efficacy of an angled implant brush for home oral hygiene of full-arch fixed-implant prostheses. Methods Forty-one patients treated with a full-arch implant rehabilitation in the maxilla or mandible (164 implants) for at least 4 months were enrolled. The screw-retained fixed prostheses were removed and baseline (T0) parameters were recorded, including plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), and bleeding on probing (BOP). All patients completed a 5-item questionnaire on hygiene maintenance and received an implant brush for home hygiene. After 1 month (T1) PI, PD, and BOP were recorded again and patients completed a 7-item questionnaire to evaluate their satisfaction with the implant brush. One-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was conducted to evaluate the significance of changes in PI, PD, and BOP. A P value <0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. Results A statistically significant reduction of BOP (0.62±0.6 at T0 vs. 0.5±0.5 at T1; P =0.032) was found, while no statistically significant changes in PD (1.74±0.5 mm at T0 vs. 1.77±0.5 mm at T1; P =0.050) or PI (1.9±0.7 at T0 vs. 1.7±0.7 at T1; P =0.280) occurred. According to the 7-item questionnaire, patients reported no difficulty in using the angled brush (63.4%) and deemed it highly (46.3%) or very highly (4.8%) effective in improving their home oral hygiene. Conclusions Within the limits of the present pilot study, the patients experienced a reduction of BOP 1 month after being instructed to use the angled implant brush. The angled implant brush appeared to be a well-accepted device for home-care hygiene of full-arch fixed-implant rehabilitations.

show abstract

Visual labels to facilitate hygiene around implant-supported complete fixed dental prostheses

Cited by 6 publications

References 7 publications

Plaque accumulation on the fitting surface of full‐arch implant‐supported fixed prostheses with contact or noncontact pontics: A split mouth randomized controlled trial

Plaque accumulation on the fitting surface of full‐arch implant‐supported fixed prostheses with contact or noncontact pontics: A split mouth randomized controlled trial

Rehabilitation implant supported in malocclusion class II with high need for lip support: case report

Angled implant brush for hygienic maintenance of full-arch fixed-implant rehabilitations: a pilot study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About